Do you remember for a hot minute when people were considering splitting Iraq into three parts? A Shia state, a Sunni state, and a Kurdish state? I, as a complete geopolitical neophyte, would have loved to see what the effects of that would have been. Maybe would've let off the steam of the Kurdish-Turkey fued. Iran would've been happy with a Shia buddy. Lots of Sunnis would have been pissed at that, but they would've gotten another state out of it. ISIS may have evolved differently. I'm pretty sure it was a very unfeasible idea, between allotting oil rights and making the people at the bargaining table feel happy. But this random bombing feels completely like business as usual.
Turkey would have lost its shit, Iran would have lost its shit, Saudi Arabia would have lost its shit. Turkey is primarily concerned with there NEVER being a Kurdish state, because it'll erode half of Turkey. This is one reason they tend to bomb and shell "ISIS" when a lot of the time they're bombing and shelling Kurds. Partitioning gives an ethnicity geopolitical legitimacy and Turkey would pull ambassadors over that shit. Iran will bide their time and absorb what's left over as soon as everyone else is sick of it. ISIS is Wahabi, Wahabi is fundamentalist Sunni, whenever bombs are dropped on Sunnis the Shia come out ahead. Partitioning would put a border on something they intend to de facto rule through proxies and require them to put troops on the ground to defend it and that's not their style. Saudi Arabia insists that the whole goddamn world is Sunni and giving 2/3rds of the Promised Land to those filthy Kurds and those filthy Shia is "erased from the map" outrage. You're talking about a world power that lost its shit over a burger wrapper. Far better to prop up the borders, cover your ears and sing "LA LA LA" at the top of your lungs so you're not forced to acknowledge that Sykes-Picot didn't make its hundredth birthday.
That's probably why my opinion is not solicited. I thought Iran would have preferred such an arrangement. Question, what's the basis of the Turkish-Kurd beef? Wikipedia's article on the subject takes for granted that the feud just started. And are all Kurds equally despicable in Turkish eyes?
Mountain people are never easily ruled by plains people. Historically speaking, mountain people rush in from the mountains, conquer the plains where living is easier, grow fat and lazy and are conquered by the next wave of mountain people. The Ottomans had an uneasy grasp on the Kurds. Then when the Ottomans got blown out, Attaturk resorted to genocide to keep them in line. Ethnically, Turks are plains people that happen to govern a mountainous region full of Kurds. Take away Sykes-Picot and the machinations of Attaturk and Kurdistan comprises a big chunk of Turkey. That chunk, right now, has its fair share of Kurdish separatists. You give Kurds their own country and Turkey goes on a major weight loss program. Period.